CENTER ON JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AUGUST 2012
www.cjcj.org
Research Brief

UPDATE: Nine Months into Realignment:
California’s Prisoner Decline Continues, New Admissions Rise
As of August 15, 2012
By Mike Males, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Introduction
This publication analyses the latest data from California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR)’s Data Analysis Unit (2012) of new prison admissions covering the third
and last quarters of 2011 and the first and second quarters of 2012. This directly compares prison
admissions before and after Assembly Bill (AB) 109’s implementation, commonly referred to as
“Realignment.” It provides ongoing analysis of the overall statewide and county-by-county prison
commitment and population trends.
New quarterly figures released by CDCR show that during the first 9 months of realignment there
has been a 39% overall reduction in new prison admissions as of June 30, 2012, and a drop of
26,480 in the prison population as of August 8, 2012, compared to October 1, 2011. Realignment
was designed to redirect non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offenders from incarceration in state
prison to the supervision of local jurisdictions. Within the first 9 months of realignment, CDCR has
already progressed two-thirds of the way toward the goal of reducing inmate populations by 40,000
by 2017.
However, the initially steep reductions in prisoners may be almost over, and further cuts may prove
harder to achieve. The second quarter of 2012 actually brought an increase in new admissions.
From March through June 2012, 8,352 inmates were admitted to California prisons, an increase of
306 over the 8,046 admitted in January through March. A contributing factor to the increase was an
additional 2 days in the 2nd than in the first quarter.
From the first to the second quarter of 2012, new felon admissions increased but parole violators
returned with a new term fell. This highlights the growing importance of both state and local
parolee supervision in preventing violators from being returned to prison. The biggest increase in
admissions, by far, was in new felon admissions for non-marijuana drug offenses, which rose by
22%, while property offender numbers rose by 6% and violent offender numbers remained the
same. Of the state’s 58 counties, 33 showed increases (some significant, such as by Kings and
Tulare counties), 21 counties showed declines (some significant, such as by San Mateo and
Orange), and 4 counties showed no change. Still, California’s prison population fell by 4,002 from
March 31 to June 30, 2012, even as new felon admissions increased.
1

Demographics of state prison commitments
Broadly speaking, from the third quarter of 2011 to the second quarter of 2012, new admissions of
female, white, and Asian offenders, parole violators, and drug and property offenders showed
declines of over 40% (Table 1). Before realignment, 29.7% of prison admissions were for violent
offenses; after realignment, 47.8%. Particularly large declines were recorded in admissions for nonmarijuana drug possession (-57%), petty theft with prior (-62%), marijuana sale/possession (-69%),
and non-marijuana drug sales (-74%) (CDCR, 2012).
Table 1. Changes in quarterly new commitments to state prison, post- vs. pre- realignment
Total felon admissions to state prison by calendar quarter
Change in new admissions
(2012-2nd v. 2011-3rd):
Pre-realignment
Post-realignment
Demographic:
2011-3rd
2011-4th
2012-1st
2012-2nd
Number
Percent
Total
13,614
8,855
8,046
8,352
-5,262
-39%
Female
1,473
627
506
558
-915
-62%
Male
12,141
8,228
7,540
7,794
-4,347
-36%
Race
White
3,866
2,246
2,046
2,153
-1,713
-44%
Black
3,147
2,364
2,083
2,165
-982
-31%
Latino
5,913
3,771
3,536
3,629
-2,284
-39%
Asian/other
688
474
381
405
-283
-41%
Age
Under 18
0
1
0
1
1
18-19
574
440
435
461
-113
-20%
20-24
2,562
1,784
1,728
1,739
-823
-32%
25-29
2,552
1,631
1,495
1,537
-1,015
-40%
30-34
2,216
1,380
1,271
1,334
-882
-40%
35-39
1,562
947
783
916
-646
-41%
40-44
1,470
890
808
791
-679
-46%
45-49
1,235
817
728
683
-552
-45%
50-54
827
552
422
513
-314
-38%
55-59
380
235
237
228
-152
-40%
60 AND OVER
236
178
139
149
-87
-37%
Admission status
New admission
9,723
6,439
5,982
6,440
-3,283
-34%
Parole violator
3,891
2,416
2,064
1,912
-1,979
-51%
Offense
Violent crimes
4,039
3,912
3,992
3,996
-43
-1%
Property crimes
4,331
2,089
1,730
1,833
-2,498
-58%
Drug crimes
3,358
1,516
1,016
1,160
-2,198
-65%
Other crimes
1,886
1,338
1,308
1,363
-523
-28%
Source: CDCR, 2012.

2

County-by-county
At first glance at the top of Table 2, 11 counties (including 4 major ones:1 San Joaquin, Santa Cruz,
Madera, and Kings) appear to contradict realignment trends. Their prison commitments increased
or showed no change in the first 9 months of realignment even as 47 counties showed declines.
However, 8 of these 11 counties (including Santa Cruz) had substantially lower than average rates
of state prison commitments before realignment, leaving a smaller margin for additional reductions.
However, Kings, San Joaquin, and Madera counties had both higher than average rates of
imprisonment before realignment and increased imprisonments after realignment.
In contrast, 12 counties (including 4 major ones: San Mateo, Orange, Santa Clara, and Solano)
showed declines of 50% or more in new prison commitments after realignment. These reductions
are significant, since all 12 of these counties previously had lower than average rates of state
imprisonment. Similarly, San Francisco achieved a 47% reduction in new prison commitments
after realignment despite already having California’s lowest imprisonment rate, just one-fourth the
state average.
Table 2. Change in counties’ new commitments to state prison, post- versus pre-realignment period
Change in new admissions
County (ranked
Felon new admissions to state prison by quarter
Pre-realignment
Post-realignment
(2012-2nd v. 2011-3rd):
by percent
2011-3rd
2011-4th
2012-1st
2012-2nd
Number
Percent
change):
Modoc
Del Norte
Colusa
Trinity
Santa Cruz
San Joaquin
San Benito
Madera
Kings
Mariposa
Sierra
Amador
Napa
Shasta
Marin
Stanislaus
Yolo
Mendocino
San Luis Obispo
Butte
Lake
San Diego
Yuba
Merced
Tulare
Contra Costa
Monterey
Lassen
Sonoma
Sacramento

0
6
4
2
22
182
12
42
113
4
1
12
26
91
23
157
93
35
63
120
24
830
44
72
179
135
171
18
90
524

2
3
4
1
36
175
10
24
72
2
0
5
24
74
19
135
61
21
43
57
18
618
44
58
129
123
119
6
90
451

1
9
1
5
22
206
10
46
52
1
2
10
25
62
20
131
51
16
35
65
25
559
44
55
83
96
112
4
56
314

2
12
7
3
30
223
14
44
113
4
1
11
23
80
20
134
74
27
48
88
17
581
30
49
121
91
115
12
60
345

+2
+6
+3
+1
+8
+41
+2
+2
0
0
0
-1
-3
-11
-3
-23
-19
-8
-15
-32
-7
-249
-14
-23
-58
-44
-56
-6
-30
-179

+~
+100%
+75%
+50%
+36%
+23%
+17%
+5%
0%
0%
0%
-8%
-12%
-12%
-13%
-15%
-20%
-23%
-24%
-27%
-29%
-30%
-32%
-32%
-32%
-33%
-33%
-33%
-33%
-34%

1

In this publication “major counties” refers to counties with 500 or more inmates in state prison as of December 31,
2011. Those counties include: Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera,
Merced, Monterey, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin,
San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama,
Tulare, Ventura, Yolo, and Yuba.

3

Los Angeles
Tehama
Alameda
Statewide
Placer
Siskiyou
Fresno
Tuolumne
Kern
San Bernardino
Riverside
Glenn
Ventura
Humboldt
San Francisco
Santa Barbara
Nevada
Solano
El Dorado
Santa Clara
Calaveras
Imperial
Orange
Sutter
San Mateo
Plumas
Inyo
Mono
Alpine

4,412
47
250
13,614
58
20
477
22
532
1,300
968
11
176
59
106
142
12
95
40
554
9
46
936
47
185
6
4
1
0

2,915
21
197
8,855
57
6
316
15
291
784
575
7
100
33
66
77
6
70
28
251
6
29
446
22
94
3
3
0
0

2,601
36
179
8,046
46
6
303
7
281
646
594
5
82
30
59
64
2
55
41
239
5
16
503
20
88
5
3
0
0

2,736
29
154
8,352
35
12
285
13
314
743
533
6
96
32
56
72
6
47
19
256
4
20
405
20
70
2
1
0
0

-1,676
-18
-96
-5,262
-23
-8
-192
-9
-218
-557
-435
-5
-80
-27
-50
-70
-6
-48
-21
-298
-5
-26
-531
-27
-115
-4
-3
-1
0

-38%
-38%
-38%
-39%
-40%
-40%
-40%
-41%
-41%
-43%
-45%
-45%
-45%
-46%
-47%
-49%
-50%
-51%
-53%
-54%
-56%
-57%
-57%
-57%
-62%
-67%
-75%
-100%
-~

Source: CDCR, 2012.

Second Quarter 2012 Trends
In realignment’s initial quarter (October-December 2011), total felon admissions fell by 4,759
compared to the previous quarter; in the second quarter (January-March 2012), total felon
admissions dropped by another 809. However, in the third post-realignment quarter (April-June
2012), counties sent 306 more felons to state prison than in the previous quarter (Table 3). The
increase was disparate among the counties.
The increase consisted of new felon admissions (up 8%), while parole violators returned to prison
with a new term dropped (-7%). Offenders convicted of the relatively small number of drug and a
few other non-violent, non-serious, non-sex (“non-non-non”) crimes – particularly those involving
drugs other than marijuana – that still merit state imprisonment showed increased prison numbers
while imprisonments for violent offenses remained the same. Within the violent offense category,
robbery and rape admissions showed large declines, homicide admissions were stable, and
aggravated assault admissions rose. The increase in new imprisonments was concentrated in 33
counties that sent 628 more offenders to state prison in the second quarter of 2012 than in the first
quarter and mainly affected drug offenders, not violent ones. Meanwhile, 21 counties continued
reducing their new prison commitments substantially, by 317, in April-June 2012.

4

Table 3. Demographic changes in quarterly new commitments to state prison, 2012
Total felon admissions to state prison by
Change in new admissions
Offender, offense, county details
calendar quarter, post-realignment
(2012-2nd v. 2012-1st):
Offender status
2012-1st
2012-2nd
Number
Percent
Total
8,046
8,352
306
+4%
New felon admission
5,982
6,440
458
+8%
Parole violator returned to prison
2,064
1,912
-152
-7%
Offense categories
Crimes against persons
3,992
3,996
4
+0%
Property crimes
1,730
1,833
103
+6%
Drug crimes
1,016
1,160
144
+14%
Other crimes
1,308
1,363
55
+4%
Selected offenses
Murder/manslaughter
287
286
-1
-0%
Robbery
934
874
-60
-6%
Rape
69
46
-23
-33%
Aggravated assault
801
879
78
+10%
Drug sale (non marijuana)
389
410
21
+5%
Drug possession (non marijuana)
564
688
124
+22%
Petty theft with prior
164
165
1
+1%
Marijuana sale/possession
63
62
-1
-2%
County prison admission status
33 counties with increases
5,779
6,407
628
+11%
21 counties with decreases
2,215
1,898
-317
-14%
Source: CDCR, 2012. Note: 4 counties showed no change in admissions, and admissions from “other” areas fell by 5.

Conclusion
While overall prison populations and new prison commitments in 21 counties continued their
decline in the second quarter of 2012, the overall number of new prison commitments rose for new
felons, certain drug and assault offenses, and in 33 counties. Several factors could lie behind these
unexpected new numbers. Perhaps realignment has already transferred the majority of non-violent,
non-serious, non-sex offenders to retain at local levels. The reduction of 26,480 in state prison
populations in the first 10 months of realignment, including a 39% decline in new commitments,
has been much more rapid than predicted. Further reductions in prison populations may be difficult
to achieve. Alternatively, perhaps a real increase in serious crime is generating more felons eligible
for state prison (2011 and 2012 arrest data are not yet available to explore this possibility).
However, these two possibilities appear implausible based on available information. The biggest
reason is that in the second quarter of 2012, new felon admissions to prison continued to decline in
21 counties, including a diverse array of both populous, urban counties (Orange, Riverside,
Alameda, San Francisco, Merced, Fresno, Solano, Napa, Madera) and smaller and rural ones (Inyo,
Plumas, Lake, Tehama). If the state had exhausted the transfer of non-non-non felons or counties
were experiencing increases in crimes meriting state imprisonment, one would expect these trends
to be occurring across the state. Further, one would not expect to see real increases in some
offenses, such as non-marijuana drug and aggravated assault, alongside sharp declines in others,
such as marijuana, rape, and robbery offenses; statewide crime trends tend to be more generalized.
These factors suggest a third possibility: prosecutors in certain jurisdictions could be exploring
ways to avoid realignment mandates by charging more defendants with those offenses still eligible
5

for state imprisonment. For example in November 2011, Los Angeles District Attorney, Steve
Cooley, announced he was teaching his staff “to ‘scour’ criminal records to make sure they note any
prior offenses when they file new charges, and to make sure that new charges include offenses
categorized as serious, violent or sexual when possible” (Lagos, 2011). Whether as a result of
deliberate policy or for other reasons, Los Angeles’s prison commitments rose by 135 from the first
to the second quarter of 2012, reversing the county’s previous decline.
In a previous report, we concluded that many counties that had become “state dependent” by using
the prison system as a repository for lower-level drug and property offenders and would face
correspondingly greater challenges in implementing realignment (CJCJ, 2011). Indeed, as
realignment has shifted thousands of the lower-level drug and property offenders from state to local
management, formerly large disparities in county imprisonment rates have widened further. For
example, in the last quarter before realignment, a felon in Kings County was approximately 10
times more likely to be sent to state prison than a felon in San Francisco; today, after realignment,
that disparity has risen to 18 times.
These data demonstrate that a number of counties now are sending more drug (and, to a lesser
extent, drug-involved property) offenders to prison. Whether the issue is that more drug offenders
are now being charged under the few drug-offense statutes that still permit state imprisonment, or
that other factors account for this increase, needs to be examined.
References
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2012). Characteristics of Felon New Admissions
and Parole Violators Returned with a New Term. July-September 2011; October-December, 2011; JanuaryMarch, 2012; April-June 2012. Provided by CDCR by request. See semi-annual reports at:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/Achar1Archive.ht
ml
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ). (2011). Can California’s county jails absorb low-level state prisoners?
San Francisco, CA: CJCJ. At: http://cjcj.org/files/Can_California_County_Jails_Absorb_LowLevel_State_Prisoners.pdf
Lagos, M. (2011, November 20). Prison plan sways prosecutors in filing charges. San Francisco Chronicle. At:
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prison-plan-sways-prosecutors-in-filing-charges-2288769.php#page-1
Please note: Each year, every county submits their data to the official statewide databases maintained by appointed
governmental bodies. While every effort is made to review data for accuracy, CJCJ cannot be responsible for data
reporting errors made at the county level.
For more information please contact:
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 621-5661
cjcjmedia@cjcj.org
www.cjcj.org
www.cjcj.org/blog
facebook.com/CJCJmedia
twitter.com/CJCJmedia

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that offers policy analysis,
6
program development, and technical assistance in the criminal justice field.